(T.Y. Jung).The use of exibility mechanisms known as the so-called Kyoto Mechanisms, including the clean develop-ment mechanism (CDM), was approved internationallyto help Annex I countries meet their greenhouse gas(GHG) emission reduction targets, at the third sessionof the Conference of the Parties (COP-3) to the UNframework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) in1997. The CDM entered its implementation phase after4 years of negotiations that culminated in comprehen-

to its operational rules. At COP-8 in November 2002,the CDM executive board approved trial accreditationand verication of operational entities (OE) that areresponsible for the administrative functions of registra-tion and certication of CDM projects, moving thepreparations for institutional arrangements into the nalstage. Because many of the implementation rules hadbeen undecided up to that point, much CDM-relatedresearch focused on discussions about the CDM systemitself and methods to estimate baselines. But withimplementation rules decided, the focus of researchCorporate motives and strategies of both investing and hosting country affect the outcomes of a clean development mechanism

(CDM) projectwho introduces what technology to whomand result in large differences in economic viability and the CO2emission reductions. This is particularly true for steel industry in which steel making consists of many detailed and complex

processes, a given strategy could produce cumulative effects of the individual technologies used, leading to large energy savings

overall. The objective of this study is to demonstrate some analytical methods that can be used to quantitatively evaluate the impacts

of technology selection on the prot performance of CDM projects. Specically, in this study we analyze a CDM project to

introduce energy saving technology from Japan to a small steel manufacturer in Chinas Shandong Province, and conduct a

simulation of the quantitative relationships between various technology options and protability. Based on these results, we examine

the environmental and economic signicance of technology selection for CDM projects. To take this further, we then reconsider the

protability of a project as typical FDI activity (i.e., without the CDM), and by comparing this outcome with the CDM case, we

clarify the signicance and potential of the CDM.

r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Steel; CDM; ChinaAbstractTechnology choice and CDM prosteel company in

Shinji Kanekoa,, Asaka YaGraduate School for International Development and Coo

Higashi-HiroshbOkinawa Health and Longevity Research and Development C

cInstitute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Kamiyama

Available onlin391151

ts in China: case study of a smallandong Province

amineb, Tae Yong Jungc

ion (IDEC), Hiroshima University, 1-5-1 Kagamiyama,

39-8529, Japan

, 5-11-1 Midorimachi, Gushikawa, Okinawa, 904-2215, Japan

2108-11, Hayama-machi, Miura-gun, Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan

ecember 2004

www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

mechanism offered by the CDM changes the business

ARTICLE IN PRESSPoliorganizations such as the World Bank (NationalStrategic Studies for Indonesia, Thailand, China, etc.at http://www.worldbank.org/nss), and the UnitedNations Environment Programme (UNEP, CDP Capa-city Building Program for Vietnam, Cambodia, andPhilippines at http://cd4cdm.org/).Energy costs account for a large portion of produc-

tion costs in energy intensive industries such as steelmaking, creating a strong incentive to save energy.Energy saving strategies for the steel industry can bebroadly classied into simplication of processes andimprovements in work operations, continuous casting,recovery and utilization of waste energy, and thermalrecycle of sludge and wastesand each of these involvesa range of technologies. Generally speaking, becausesteel making consists of many detailed and complexprocesses, a given strategy could produce cumulativeeffects of the individual technologies used, leading tolarge energy savings overall. This phenomenon has beenwitnessed in Japans steel industry, in which improve-ments in operational efciency implemented carefully inall processes have helped to realize a large improvementin productivity (Japan Iron and Steel Federation, 1991;Kotani and Kondoh, 2002). Three major factors thataffect the potential of CO2 emission reductions in aCDM project are: (1) differences in the technology levelsbetween the technology provider and technology re-cipient, (2) costs, and (3) incentives for the participatingentities. Each of these is closely related to the technologyselection, i.e., what kinds of technologies are introducedto which country. In other words, for the steel industrythe selection of technology is one of very importantfactors for a CDM project.A common method used to ascertain the CO2

reduction potential of a CDM project is to calculatethe relationship between the average unit emissionsreduction (i.e., average cost per unit of CO2 reduction)in a particular industry and the predicted price ofcertied emission reductions (CERs) (e.g., Kainuma etal., 1999, 2000; Jiang et al., 1998; Baron and Lanza,2000; Woerdman and van der Gaast, 2001; Jotzo andMichaelowa, 2002; Chen, 2003). This is the mainstreamapproach because the focus is on considering differencesbetween industries, from a macro perspective, byestimating the CO2 emission reductions that could beachieved from CDM projects for industry overall, or forone particular industry. But the case of the steel industrymakes it clear that estimates resulting from thisapproach can only have limited meaning, if oneconsiders the importance of technology selection ordifferences in the signicance of a given technology in agiven industry. In addition, if one considers that CDMprojects are ultimately conducted on a project-by-project basis, and that the investors are likely to bemainly from private sectors, the situations for specic

S. Kaneko et al. / Energy1140projects can differ widely. Such individual project-decisions of corporations. Such motives and strategiesaffect the outcomes of a CDM projectwho introduceswhat technology to whomand result in large differ-ences in economic viability and the CO2 emissionreductions. This is why we are emphasizing the needto specify concretely who are the technology providersand recipients, when evaluating a CDM project, and toconduct analysis only after being as specic as possibleabout the technology. This is also why individual casestudies are so important.The objective of this study is to demonstrate some

analytical methods that can be used to quantitativelyevaluate the impacts of technology selection on theprot performance of CDM projects. Specically, in thisstudy we analyze a CDM project to introduce energysaving technology from Japan to a small steel manu-facturer in Chinas Shandong Province, and conduct asimulation of the quantitative relationships betweenvarious technology options and protability. Based onthese results, we examine the environmental andeconomic signicance of technology selection forCDM projects. To take this further, we then reconsiderthe protability of a project as typical FDI activity (i.e.,without the CDM), and by comparing this outcomewith the CDM case, we clarify the signicance andpotential of the CDM.

2. Review of relevant studies

2.1. Estimating abatement costs

Much research has been conducted on the costs ofreducing CO2 emissions connected with energy con-sumption. This work has been conducted from theeconomic perspective in the context of measures toaddress global warming, based on the view that it isadvantageous to make the reductions in countries,regions or sectors where the costs of reduction are thecheapest. The platform for the methodology comes fromthe economic analysis of the costs of energy conserva-specic variations including technology selection canlargely affect average unit emissions reduction, andaccordingly obscure the overall picture of sectoral CO2reduction of the steel industry.Meanwhile, in the context of economic globalization,

corporations from developed countries are constantlyscouring the world for investment opportunities, andtechnology is transferred from developed to developingcountries as a part of global strategies of corporations.This dynamic foreign direct investment (FDI) activitypresents developing countries with many options for theintroduction of energy saving technologies. It isimportant to understand whether or not the new

cy 34 (2006) 11391151tion that is done with the aim of efcient use of nite

energy resources, and this approach has been used sincemany years ago (e.g., Nordhaus, 1979). After the EarthSummit in 1992, the issue of climate change became one

2.2. Assessment of AIJ

The CDM allows for the acquisition of creditscounting back to the year 2000,2 but there are still fewexamples of implementation, and comparative analysisis insufcient to date. In this context, the economicaspects of the CDM and joint implementation (JI) have

ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Kaneko et al. / Energy Policy 34 (2006) 11391151 1141of key topics on the agenda of international negotia-tions, animating debate about how to calculate the costsand evaluate the economics of climate policies, andboosting the need for research into the costs of reducingCO2 emissions (IPCC, Hourcade et al., 1996).A series of studies have estimated the costs of CO2

emissions reduction by using macro economic modelsfor measuring energy. The energy modeling forum(EMF) compares the CO2 emissions reduction costs invarious countries from a number of modeling studies(IPCC, Hourcade and Shukla, 2001). With top-downmodels, it is possible to compare the reduction costs ofCO2 in various countries and sectors, as well as theinvestment required to implement such projects. Butbecause these studies are based on assumed averagereduction costs for certain technology options in eachsector, it is not possible to consider differences betweentechnologies. Thus, that approach is not easily applic-able to the micro-level evaluation of individual projects.Shukla (1995) estimates reduction costs by sector,

while explicitly considering technology options. Thatstudy estimates CO2 reduction costs, targeting typicaltechnology options, using case studies from Brazil,Egypt, India, Senegal, Thailand, Venezuela and Zim-babwe. With a total of 46 options in seven countries, thisrepresents an average of 6.6 options evaluated percountry. But in contrast to the detailed focus onindividual technologies in the present study, Shuklacovers only the more conventional types of technolo-gies.1

Kainuma et al. (1999, 2000) and Jiang et al. (1998)estimate the costs of CO2 reduction by consideringspecic technologies in a series of studies that used theAIM/End-Use Model. They calculate the average costfunction for CO2 emission reductions, based on proledata for a number of individual new and advancedtechnologies, for 29 industries in ve sectors (agricultur-al, industrial, residential, service and transport). Forexample, in the steel industry they consider 17 types ofadvanced technologies. Jiang et al. applied thesemethodologies to China and ranked the sectors in termsof average cost for CO2 emission reductions (lowest tohighest cost) as residential (urban), residential (rural),service, industrial, agricultural, and nally, transport.These studies made it possible to discuss the mosteconomically efcient technology packages, taking intoaccount the different unit reduction costs of varioustechnologies.

1For example, electricity conservation, solar energy, fuel wood and

charcoal, ethanol, bagasse conversion, fuel switching by households,

efcient industrial equipment, efcient transportation technologyoptions, etc.been analyzed through the results of activities imple-mented jointly (AIJ), which acted as pilot projects forthe CDM and JI, and have covered technical issues forimplementation of the CDM (such as the design ofbaselines and inventories, additionality, etc.) andeconomics based on those results (e.g., Ellis, 1999; Bosi,2001). Woerdman and van der Gaast (2001) conducted acomprehensive and exemplary study that analyzesreduction costs. It separates AIJ analysis into imple-mentation in non-Annex I countries (envisioning futureCDM projects), and implementation in Annex Icountries (envisioning future JI projects), analyzes costsper ton of CO2 emission reductions for each projecttype, and attempts to clarify the conditions necessary forprojects to achieve a high costbenet ratio. Comparedto the average $46/t-CO2 for AIJ projects overall,

3 theunit reduction cost for energy efciency improvementprojects implemented in non-Annex I countries was only$16/t-CO2. By project type, forest preservation was thecheapest, at an average $1/t-CO2, and more expensiveprojects were ranked (from low to high cost) asagriculture, energy efciency, reforestation, and renew-able energy. However we point out that there are anumber of limitations in the above studies to considerthe amounts of CO2 emission reductions of future CDMprojects. First of all, a common problem of this kind ofanalysis is the large difference in costs between AIJprojects conducted as trials, and CDM projects thatinvolve real investment activities (Michaelowa et al.,1999; Michaelowa, 2002; Schwarze, 2000).4 Anotherpoint, similar to the problem of differences in averagereduction costs between project types, is that costdifferences exist even between projects in a given sector.Fig. 1 is a comparison, by sector, of the disparitybetween projects in the same sector in terms of the unitcost of CO2 emission reductions. The comparison wasdone using the maximum, minimum and average cost,for (1) results of estimates calculated from investmentcosts and reductions reported to the UNFCCC for allAIJ projects (110 in total); (2) estimated results for AIJ

2Stipulated in Article 12.10 of the Kyoto Protocol.3In order to be closer to the CDM/JI, this analysis assumes that

prices take fthe banking of credits into account.4Schwarze (2000) showed that AIJ projects had regional imbalances

similar to patterns evident in trade and ofcial development assistance,

but that this was the result of lower transaction costs. It was shown

that Europe had a tendency to invest in Eastern European economies

in transition (EITs), Japan in East Asia, and the United States in SouthAmerica.

ARTICLE IN PRESSPoliS. Kaneko et al. / Energy1142projects (17 in total) implemented in non-Annex Icountries covered in research by Woerdman and van derGaast (2001); and (3) results of estimates of CDMproject feasibility studies (64 in total) conducted by theNew Energy and Industrial Technology DevelopmentOrganization (NEDO). In addition, we also show thecosts of CO2 emission reductions (maximum, average,minimum) of individual energy efciency technologiesbeing promoted by NEDO, specically for the steelindustry. This gure shows clearly that the differences inthe costs of CO2 emissions reductions are too great to beignoreddifferences between sectors, between indivi-dual projects in the same sector, and between technol-ogies.

2.3. Analysis of profitability of CDM projects

In recent years more and more detailed studies havepaid attention to project economics, with consideration

The values used in Woerdman and van der Gaast (2001) are for projects impl

are those reported to the UNFCCC by each project entity. The duration ran

credits considered, the credit creation period is assumed to be 13 years.

Projects with $1000/t-CO2 or greater have been excluded. Also excluded a

considered.cy 34 (2006) 11391151of various prices that affect protability, including theprices of technology, raw materials, and CERs, etc. Forexample, regarding the potential of the CDM for thepower generation sector in the Asia-Pacic region,APERC (2001) considers the protability of projectimplementation from the perspective of revenues andcosts. In terms of revenues, the analysis makes assump-tions based on wholesale electricity prices and CERsales. The expenditures of project implementationinclude capital investment, operation and maintenance,and fuel prices. The study includes a sensitivity analysisof CER prices, as well as other factors, such as varioustax rates on the income. The analysis resulted in aninternal rate of return (IRR) of between 1.2% and 6.0%for a coal-red power generation unit displacementproject in China with a combined cycle gas turbine(CCGT). Meanwhile, for a construction project inIndonesia of a CCGT power generation unit usingnatural gas, the IRR was between 2.7% and 19.9%. For

technology (US$/t-CO2).

eported under uniform reporting format (URF), by the product of CO2s, total cost (US$)C[US$ per avoided ton of CO2 equivalent (t-CO2/

l are calculated using 10 years as the project duration or credit creation

emented in developing countries as part of AIJ, and the project periods

ge from 1 to 60 years, but 10 years is most common. With banking of

re projects where the technology introduction to the same plant was

gas cogeneration systems (for electricity and heat) using

following formulas:

COSTN Xmi1

$iCEQi yiCLBi RF N ; (2)

dEN Xm

dei; (3)

ARTICLE IN PRESSPolicy 34 (2006) 11391151 1143the CDM. The study found that even where a projectwas protable overall, the costbenet relationship forthe investor could worsen and the incentive to invest beeroded, depending on the investment contribution ratiobetween the investing and host countries, the creditsfrom CO2 reductions, and the contractual arrangementsfor allocating indirect prots.The above studies on individual projects discuss issues

based on just one energy saving technology or on apredetermined package of related technologies. Butwhere multiple technologies are involved, i.e., where anumber of separate technologies and equipment arecombinedas is the case in the steel making industrythe energy saving effects in the production processes arethe cumulative result of energy saving effects of specicindividual technologies. It is clear that because there area many possible combinations of technologies, themeaning of the word technology changes, and thismeans that different approaches are needed to evaluatetechnologies.

3. Research framework

3.1. Methodology

For a given plant, there are a separate energy-savingtechnology options that could be introduced, and whenevaluating the technology package to be introduced as acombination of m types of energy-saving technologyoptions, the total possible number of evaluation cases Nis expressed by the following formula:

N Xam1

aCm: (1)

For each evaluated case N (=1, 2, y), the totalcost COSTN, amount of energy saving dEN anda fuel switching project in Thailand, from biomassgeneration to co-ring power generation using coal, theIRR was between 12.0% and 20.8%.Meanwhile, a series of studies by Ujikawa (2003)

involved costbenet analyses based on detailed infor-mation obtained from eld research on constructioncosts and energy conserving benets of specic technol-ogies, targeting blast furnaces in steel plants ofShandong Province with a capacity of 50m3 or less.The technologies included blast furnace upgrades withsintering plants as supplementary equipment, ore sizeselectors and coke plant equipment. The studiesconcluded that for the province overall, the benetsexceeded the costs starting in the third year.Kosugi et al. (2002) conducted a costbenet analysis

Here, CEQi is the equipment price for energytechnology option i in the technology-providing coun-try, and CLBi is the construction costs for technologyoption i in the technology-providing country. Inaddition, oi is the equipment price difference rate orcost change rate between provider and host country, andyi is the construction cost difference rate or cost changerate. These parameters were adopted to explicitlyexpress the differences in costs of technology transferdepending on differences in the form of investment. RFNis the CDM registration fee5 that is deducted from CERrevenues, for introduced technology package N. Mean-while, dei is the energy-saving effect (tons of oilequivalent per year, or TOE/yr) and dCO2i reductioneffect (t-CO2/yr) for the case of introduction of specictechnology option i.The energy price Pe(t) during time period t is

expressed as shown below, where de is the annual rateof energy price increase.

Pet Pe01 det: (7)The expenditures ExpN(t) for the technology intro-

duction project after time period t are expressed asshown below, as well as revenue RevN(t), the price ofenergy Pe(t) and the price of CERs Pc(t) after timeperiod t. Meanwhile, fi is the share of CDM proceedsgoing to the Adaptation Fund, in connection with CDMrevenues from introduced technology option i.

ExpNt COSTN t 0;

0 ta0;

(8)

RevNt dEN t Pet dCO2N t Pct f i dCO2N t Pct: 9

Prot performance can be evaluated based on thebalance between revenues and expenses for a project,

5The CDM registration fees were announced at the sixth CDM

executive board meeting. These fees are subtracted from CER revenues

during the rst year that CERs are generated, and depend on the

average annual GHG reductions (CO2 equivalent) over the life of the

project. The fees are US$5000 for average annual reduction of 15,000 t-

CO2eq/yr or less, US$10,000 for over 15,00050,000 t-CO2eq/yr or less,

US$15,000 for 50,000100,000 t-CO2eq/yr or less, $20,000 for over

100,000200,000 t-CO2eq/yr or less, and $30,000 for over 200,000 t-CO2eq/yr.

but when considering a long period of time, a discountrate reecting the actual change of net present value isimportant. For projects in this study, it is assumed thatthe initial investment to introduce an energy savingtechnology package is recovered by the annual energy

3.2. Simulation assumptions

3.2.1. Cost saving scenarios (CSS) for technology

transfers

Cost is a major obstacle when considering transferringan energy saving technology from Japan to a local plantin China. To increase the protability of a project, we

ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Kaneko et al. / Energy Policy 34 (2006) 113911511144cost saving from conserving energy and the revenuefrom CERs obtained under the CDM. Thus, for eachtechnology package N, the discount rate j is set at a xedamount for each period, and from the present until ttime periods later, the sum of present values of capitalexpenditures IN and the sum of present values of cashows VN are as shown below:

IN t InvN0 InvN 11 j

InvN21 j2

InvN t1 jt

Xtn0

InvNn1 jn ; 10

V Nt RevN 11 j

RevN21 j2

RevNt1 jt

Xtn0

RevNnn1 jn : 11

The internal rate of return (IRR) is dened as thediscount rate j required to make the sum of presentvalues of future cash ows equal to the requiredinvestment amount. In other words, it is the discountrate that results in a net present value of zero.

NPV N V Nt IN t

Xtn0

RevNn InvN n1 IRRNn

0 12

If IRR is higher than a suitable discount rate (calledthe cut-off rate), corporate value will increase byimplementing the project. In practice, if IRR andinterest rate j are compared and IRR is greater than j,this project would be worth adopting, and if IRR is lessthan j the reverse is true.As for implementation of small-scale CDM projects6

led by private corporations, research on feasibility andobstacles for the CDM has pointed out that an IRR of15% or higher is a necessary precondition for a projectto attract investment (Sutter, 2001). Following thatexample, the present study uses a standard of 15% toevaluate protability of investment for IRRN calculatedfor each technology package N.

6A small-scale CDM project is either (a) renewable energy project

equivalent to maximum electrical generation of 15MW (or equivalent),

(b) energy efciency improvement project activity that reduces energy

consumption by up to a maximum of 15GWh per year, (c) a project

that reduces anthropogenic emissions from sources and the directemissions are under 15 kt in CO2 equivalent per year.cost saving scenario II (CSS-II) as a case in which theequipment comes from Japan, but only the constructionand installation of equipment is contracted out tocorporations in the host country. In this case, becausepersonnel costs account for the majority of constructioncosts, we calculate the cost reduction ratio from theincome disparity between China and Japan using percapita GDP (using PPP data, from WB 2002). Speci-cally, we use the value o 0:16 for 2001. In short, thismeans reducing construction costs by 84%. Finally, wedene cost saving scenario III (CSS-III) as a case inwhich, besides contracting the construction out locally,further cost reduction is achieved through local procure-ment of some of the parts for the equipment. Theresulting cost reductions are inter-related in a complexway and determined by not only the different technol-ogy levels and costs between Japan and China, but alsothe ratio of local equipment procurement. In this study,due to the availability of data, we use one approach forall technologies, drawing on the experience of atechnology transfer involving coke dry quenching(CDQ), implemented in the past for the Shougang steelplant in Beijing. Based on the above case, we assume theequipment cost reduction parameter y is 0.8.7

3.2.2. Energy price scenarios

Future changes in energy prices will have majorimpacts on project protability. The primary energysources for steel production include coal-related energysuch as raw coal and coke. China depends on coal to agreat extent for its energy overall, but in recent years theproportion of total energy consumption accounted for

at that time, a portion of technology was procured locally. As a result,establish scenarios for reducing costs associated withtechnology transfer, which can be divided into equip-ment cost and construction cost. We dene cost savingscenario I (CSS-I) as the implementation of a projectusing 100% of Japans price levels. In this case, all of theequipment and construction materials are importedfrom Japan to China, and it is assumed that techniciansfrom Japan do the construction work. Next, we deneit was possible to reduce equipment costs by 20% compared to Unit 1.

by coal has been declining. In addition, with theexception of coal for electricity generation, since 1993,measures have been taken for complete price liberal-ization. Coal prices continued dropping from then until2001, but in 2002 the trend changed to a slight increase.China liberalized its coal market, but because it still haslower prices than the international market prices,8 it is

studies, we obtain the value of $43.8/TOE (=Pe) for2001, the starting year for analysis.

3.2.3. CER price scenarios

At present, it is not certain at what price CERs will betraded. However, information is available on the pricesof some of the purchasing that has begun on carbon

2

This study sets the CER price to be US$10/t-CO2 as the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

establishment of independent or cooperative World Bank PCF-type

carbon fund, as well as subsidies, etc. (Asuka, 2003).

S. Kaneko et al. / Energy Policy 34 (2006) 11391151 1145not possible to rule out a large increase in the future.According to recent forecasts by the IEA (2003), theinternational market price of coal for the period20022010 will be steady at $39/t-steam coal, and afterthat there will be a small but steady price increase to$44/t-steam coal in 2030. In that context, for thissimulation, we use the two scenarios shown below forchanges in energy prices in Chinas non-transparentenergy market. It must be mentioned, however, that wetake coal for use in boilers as the indicator fordetermining future energy price scenarios, and assumethat coke and other energy prices will change in thesame way. For the rst scenario (low-energy pricescenario), it is assumed that coal prices in China willmove in a stable way during the project period, and thatthey will match changes in international prices. In otherwords, it is assumed that the difference between prices inChina and the international market will remain con-stant. The rate of price increase used for the 10-yearperiod from 2001 to 2011 is 0.3% per year. The secondscenario (high-energy price scenario) assumes that overthe course of the project period (i.e., by 2011) Chinasenergy will rise to international market prices. Theproducers price of boiler coal in China in 2000 (fromIEA, 2002) was US$27.3 t-steam coal (in 2000 prices).Thus, for the second scenario, if we assume that theprice of boiler coal in China will rise to the internationalmarket price by 2010, this means an annual priceincrease of 3%.The steel industry mostly consumes coal-related

energy, but the actual type of fuel used depends withthe production process.9 To simplify the analysis in thisstudy, however, we use an average energy price for coal,calculated in terms of the thermal conversion (TOE) foreach type of fuel actually used at the plant, calculatetotal energy consumption and total cost, and use theaverage energy cost as the coal price. It is to this pricethat we apply the price increase scenarios. Aftercalculating the average price of energy consumed atthe plant in question, based on interviews during eld

8See IEA (2003).9For example, in the target plant, the coal used to make coke needed

to produce pig iron and the coal used in other processes is different

from the coal used as fuel in other processes. Note that in this plant,

about 40% of the coke used is produced in-house, while 60% is

purchased elsewhere. For this study, it is assumed that the proportion

of coke produced in-house and purchased from elsewhere does notchange due to the implementation of the project.11A lot of the research has used economic models such as AIM,

EPPA, GREEN, RICE-98, etc., to estimate carbon unit prices in the

international market. See also Janssen (2001).CER price high scenario, based on the results of MS-MRT,12 which estimated carbon credit prices using theComputable General Equilibrium (CGE) model. Inaddition, besides setting the CDM price scenarios asdescribed above, we dene FDI as a case with no CERs(i.e., CER=0), which means we have a total of threescenarios.

3.2.4. Simulation cases

This study uses three scenarios each for technologytransfer cost reduction types (CSS-I, CSS-II, CSS-III)and CER prices (0, low, high), and two scenarios (low,high) for the annual rate of increase of energy prices.The combinations of these three categories of scenarioswe call cases. Among these scenarios, the base case isdened as the most expensive scenario of technologytransfer type (CSS-I), with a 0.3% annual increase inenergy prices (i.e., the energy price low scenario), and nouse of CERs (CER=0), which means it is in effect anFDI project. Twelve of the cases involve CERs (i.e.,CER 60) as CDM project scenarios and other ve casesare FDI (CER=0), for a total of 18 cases, which form

10At the beginning of 2003, Finland and Denmark governments

launched a carbon credit purchasing system based on international

competitive bidding similar to the ERUPT/CERUPT style. Also, in

Japan, various ministries and organizations, are considering thecredits under the CDM and JI. Examples include theNetherlands governments Emission Reduction UnitPurchase Tender (ERUPT) and Certied EmissionReduction Unit Purchase Tender (CERUPT) pro-grammes and the World Banks Prototype CarbonFund (PCF), and these activities appear to be increas-ing.10 The reported purchase price for credits under aCDM energy conservation project in 2001 was $4.0/t-CO2 (EUR4.4/t-CO2). This study uses that amount forthe CER low-price scenario.Much research has been conducted regarding prices

S. Kaneko et al. / Energy Poli11463.3. Baseline of the study plantthe basis for the simulation. The parameters and

FDI-2 CSS-III 0.02 0.16

FDI-3 CSS-I 1 1

FDI-4 CSS-II 1 0.16

FDI-5 CSS-III 0.02 0.16

CDM-1 CSS-I 1 1

CDM-2 CSS-II 1 0.16

CDM-3 CSS-III 0.02 0.16

CDM-4 CSS-I 1 1

CDM-5 CSS-II 1 0.16

CDM-6 CSS-III 0.02 0.16

CDM-7 CSS-I 1 1

CDM-8 CSS-II 1 0.16

CDM-9 CSS-III 0.02 0.16

CDM-10 CSS-I 1 1

CDM-11 CSS-II 1 0.16

CDM-12 CSS-III 0.02 0.16The plant targeted by this study is the Integrated Ironand Steel Making Works, a medium-sized steel maker inChinas Shandong Province.13 Basic data for the plantwere obtained by a eld study in November 2002. Thesedata include information on energy efciency, industrialoutput, and pricing of fuels being used. The companyprole of the plant used in the case study is summarizedin Table 2. For the carbon emission factor (CEF) we usethe value 0.0419 t-C/TJ recommended by the IPCC, andthermal output of coal also comes from IPCC values, at26.8 TJ/TCE.14

The main fuel used at this plant is coal, and in 2001the total energy consumption was 12.2 PJ/yr (292.3 Th.TOE/yr). The total annual CO2 emissions from energyconsumption amounted to 1.2Mt-CO2. Using these

13The production process is divided into the iron-making process,

which makes pig iron from iron ore in a blast furnace, and steel-

making, which turns the pig iron into steel and the steel slabs that are

produced are rolled into plates and bars, etc. to become steel products.

Plants that conduct all the work from iron-making to steel-making are

called integrated steel plants. The production of steel can be divided

into two types, one from iron ore as the raw material to crude steel in a

steel converter using pig iron made in a furnace, and the other one

producing crude steel by melting pig iron and scrap iron, etc., in an

electric furnace. The present case study plant is the former type.14The value for anthracite was used.ergy price

nario

Annual energy

price increasing

ratio (%)

CER price

scenario

CER price

(US$/t-CO2)

de Pc

cy 34 (2006) 11391151gures as the baseline, this study conducts a simulationof the prot performance in cases of introduction ofenergy-saving technology.Table 3 shows the relationship between production

scale and energy consumption in Chinas steel industry. In2000, 2997 companies were operating in Chinas steel-making industry, of which 98% were small plants with500,000 tons or less of annual crude steel output. The steel

consumption per ton of crude steel output (i.e., energyintensity) that averages 41.2GJ/t-crude steel, but forsteel makers with crude steel output of 1 million tons orgreater, the energy intensity averages 27.9GJ/t-crudesteel, indicating that energy efciency rises in proportionto the scale of production. The energy intensity of thecase study plant is 30.1GJ/t-crude steel, which isrelatively more efcient that the overall steel industry,but not as high as the level of plants with 1 million tonsor more of annual output.Meanwhile, the energy intensity of the Japanese steel

industry in that year was 18.9GJ/t-crude steel,15 mean-ing that the amount of energy needed to produce oneton of crude steel was about 2.2 times higher in Chinassteel industry overall compared to Japan. Even in plantswith annual output of 1 million tons, it was still 1.5times Japans energy consumption. This means that,roughly stated, if Japans technology was introduced toChina, the potential would exist to improve the energyintensity of Chinas steel industry overall by 45.9%. This

Source: China Steel Yearbook (2002, 2001).is about the same result as found by an analysis by Priceet al. (2002) of the potential for Chinas steel industry toimprove energy efciency. They calculate the energyintensity of best practice technology for each steel-making process based on data on the composition ofsteel products (e.g., slabs, hot rolling steel, wire) and thevolumes of raw materials used (e.g., iron ore, limestoneand scrap iron, etc.) of the steel industry in countriesaround the world, and using these as the benchmarks,estimate the potential improvement in energy intensityin the case of introduction of best-practice technologiesto Chinas steel industry (Price et al., 2002). They thenindicate that it is possible to improve the energyintensity by 45%, from 36.7GJ/t-crude steel in 1995 to20.2GJ/t-crude steel.

15Estimate from the Committee on Iron and Steel Statistics (2002).Generally speaking, for competitive reasons compa-nies are cautious about releasing information such as theenergy conservation effects, prices and constructioncosts of specic equipment. This study uses data onJapans energy conserving technologies in key industrieswhere greater energy efciency is needed (NEDO, 2001).The report provides information on 29 technologiescollected from major Japanese corporations regardingJapans energy saving technologies in the steel-makingindustry. During eld studies, the authors asked thestudy plants management and technical managerswhich of these 29 technologies they had alreadyintroduced, which they would like to introduce, andwhich were feasible to introduce. We found that 11technologies had the potential to be introduced in thetarget plant (Table 4). If we compare the energy savingeffects of each technology, there is a maximum annualenergy reduction of 530,200TOE/yr (a 355-fold im-provement). Depending on the technology introduced, itis clear that there is a big difference in the energy savingeffect. If these 11 technologies were combined, therewould theoretically be potential 2047 combinations (seeEq. (1)). Below, we estimate project protability usingare Energy

intensity

(Avg.)

Gross industrial output value

GJ/t-crude

steel

billion US$ (%)

27.9 135.4 23.7

27.9 182.1 31.9

28.0 23.0 4.0

n.a. 231.1 40.4

cy 34 (2006) 11391151 1147these combinations for the 10-year period from 2001, forwhich we have actual data, through 2011.

4. Simulation results

This study involves simulations based on 18 cases thatconsist of various scenarios for type of technologytransfer, rate of increase of future coal prices, and CERprices. In each case, we estimate the IRR for each of the2047 technology packages, which are combinationsof the 11 technology options. The scenarios set forthe 18 cases affect economic viability (prot perfor-mance), but there is no difference between cases inthe physical emissions reduction of each technologypackage. Therefore, for all cases, the maximum reduc-tion of energy consumption at the target steel plant is

Pulverized coal injection system for blast furnaces23.9%, equivalent to a reduction in energy consumptionof 421,700 TOE/yr (crude oil equivalent). This amountsto 1.7Mt-CO2/yr of CO2 emissions reduction. Inaddition, the simulation shows that it is technologicallypossible through the 11 evaluation target technologies toimprove the energy intensity from the baseline 30.1GJ/t-crude steel to 23.0GJ/t-crude steel.Meanwhile, depending on type of technology transfer

and external factors, there is quite a large range in thecost of CO2 reduction

16 in the technology packages of

Steel making Regenerative burner system for ladle heating 1.

High efciency gas separation 1.

Waste gas recovery from oxygen converter 4.

Casting Continuous casting machine 5.

Rolling Hot direct rolling 1.

Skid cooling water sensible heat recycling system

for heating furnace

26.

Notes: (1) From among the energy conservation technologies listed in NEDO

CO2 or greater. (2) The crude oil equivalent for energy reduction amount is

cy 34 (2006) 11391151the targeted cases, from the lowest of $2.7 to thehighest of $125.7/t-CO2. The average cost of CO2reduction was $24.6/t-CO2. This is slightly lower thanthe average cost of $29/t-CO2 for all energy conserva-tion-related AIJ projects (Woerdman and van derGaast, 2001), and is cheaper than the lowest of therange of costs ($26$293/t-CO2) of domestic measuresneeded for Japan to achieve its Kyoto Protocol targets(IPCC, 2001).From among the estimated IRR values for each level of

estimated for a 1 million ton/year crude steel plant. However, for the

s is assumed.

technology option.

from small to large CO2 reduction rate. There is a widerange in IRR values, from 30% to +78%, and noconsistent correlation is evident between the range of CO2reduction and IRR. Comparing the largest and smallestcase, it is clear that considerable differences arise inprotability, depending on the type of technology transferand external factors. In terms of technology options, if weadd pulverized coal injection system for blast furnaceto the technology package the IRR improves signicantly.Conversely, if we introduce continuous casting machinethe IRR worsens signicantly.Regarding technology packages that fulll the cut-off

rate of IRR415% set in this study, Fig. 3 summarizesthe package number (line graph, axis on right) and itsmaximum CO2 reduction rate (bar graph, axis on left).Each graph is summarized into the three cost reduction

scenarios associated with technology transfers, from theleft CSS-I, CSS-II, and CSS-III. The graphs also line upsummaries of the same coal prices vertically, and sameCER prices horizontally. In other words, seen horizon-tally, the rst level is FDI, and other two are CDMprojects.The fact that in each graph the three bar graphs get

larger as one moves to the right shows the impacts onCO2 emission reductions from different types oftechnology transfer. The CO2 reduction rate in the casefrom the baseline of CSS-I ranges between 13.7% and20.2%, and for CSS-II between 14.0% and 20.5%, butin the case of both CSS-I and CSS-II there is almost noimpact on the difference in CO2 reduction rate. In short,it could be said that even if construction cost is reducedby procuring locally, there is no great impact on prot

ARTICLE IN PRESSPolisurpassing the prot performance line drops dramati-cally from 47 to 17 (CSS-I), from 76 to 32 (CSS-II),and from 220 to 64 (CSS-III). Thus, a non-zero CERprice boosts project protability, and offers the poten-tial for presenting a greater number of investmentopportunities.

5. Discussion and concluding remarks

This study envisioned the introduction of Japaneseenergy saving technologies to a small-scale steel plantin China, considering numerous technology combina-tions and the impacts of external factors such as coalprice increases and CER prices. The study determinedquantitatively how these factors affect the earningsstructure, a key factor for corporate investmentdecisions. In technological terms, the rst nding isthat the maximum possible CO2 emissions reduction isabout 24.0% from the baseline (current situation),equivalent to 30.1GJ/t-crude steel. This is about thesame level as the results of analysis by Price et al. (2002)in estimating the average CO2 reduction potentialfrom improvements in the overall energy efciency ofChinas steel industry. But when we estimate thepotential CO2 reduction of each case (18 in total) whileconsidering prot performance, the possible CO2reduction from the baseline ranged between 13.7%and 22.5%, equivalent to between 24.9 and 23.3GJ/t-crude steel, respectively. The maximum reductionof 22.5% (or 94.0% of the technically feasible 24.0%)performance. However, in the case of CSS-III, thereduction rate rises to between 17.7% and 22.5%. Inother words, if some equipment is procured locally,there is an increasing CO2 reduction effect.Regarding the price increase of coal, by comparing

the left and right graphs, one can see the CO2 reductionrate effect. For the target project of this study,regardless of whether the coal price maintains its currentstatus for the next 10 years or rises by 3% per year toworld prices, there is almost no impact on protperformance of the project. Comparing the scenariowith a rapid rise of energy prices (FDI-3) to the basecase, because only an additional nine technology optionspass the cut-off line, the maximum CO2 reduction ratepassing that line increases by only 0.1%.If one compares three graphs vertically, one can

see the impact of CER price on protability. By theCER price rising from $4 to $10, the number oftechnology packages surpassing the prot performanceline increases rapidly from 47 to 134 (CSS-I), from76 to 316 (CSS-II) and from 220 to 686 (CSS-III).On the other hand, if it decreases from $4 to $0, andproject implementation shifts from the CDM to

S. Kaneko et al. / Energy1150is the reduction rate at the economically viable pointin cases where CER is considered (i.e., CER 60) andexternal factors are optimal (i.e., de 3:0; Pc 10;CSS-III). Meanwhile, the minimum of 13.7% is thereduction rate that allows economic viability whenCER is not considered (i.e., CER=0) and imple-mentation is under FDI with the strictest externalfactors (i.e., de 0:3; Pc 0; CSS-I), and is only57.3% of the maximum technically feasible reduction(i.e., 24.0%). This suggests that the methods used inearlier studies that consider the CO2 emission reductionpotential, of national industries overall through amacroperspective or of a specic industry overall, couldresult in overestimates of actual CO2 reduction poten-tial. This is because with that method one cannotadequately consider differences in the signicance ofeach particular technology option or the approachesand strategies of each individual entity. This studysuggests that those methods could lead to differentresults for CDM and FDI than reality would suggest.The result could be not only a gap between estimatesand actual implementation for individual projects, butalso if decision-making is biased in a certain direction,the outcomes in an overall sector could differ largelyfrom the expected results.Steel making consists of many detailed and complex

processes, and is characterized by the fact that largeenergy savings can be enjoyed by the cumulative effectsof many individual technologies. But one cannot makesweeping conclusions about the energy saving effects ofindividual technologies, as differences exist betweenthem. Depending on the technology selection, theintroduction of one specic technology could conceiva-bly produce a large energy saving and a signicantimprovement in prot performance, or the reverse couldalso be true. The current analysis shows that a relativelylarge CO2 reduction results just from introducing onetechnology (a pulverized coal injection system for blastfurnaces) that has a large energy saving effect, and thatthis could dramatically improve the IRR value. If thistechnology is included in the mix, even in the base casewith the lowest prot performance and the strictestexternal conditions, this study shows quantitatively thatit would be possible to economically achieve a 13.7%CO2 reduction from the baseline (about 60% of themaximum CO2 reduction that is technically possible).This suggests that by combining such protabletechnologies with other technologies, it is possible tomaintain good prot performance, and to achievegreater CO2 emission reductions. In other words, thisstudy shows that depending on the technology selection,even without using the new mechanism of the CDM, it isto some extent possible through existing FDI to conducta certain amount of technology transfers of energysaving technologies. This study also suggests that theCDM can complement FDI and contribute to further

We, authors appreciate that Dr. Hoesung Lee ofCouncil on Energy and Environment Korea (CEEK)made valuable comments. However, all the remainingerrors are ours. The research was funded in part by aGrant-in-Aid for Scientic Research (B) from theJapanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,Science and Technology (MEXT), No.14350285.

References

Asia Pacic Energy Research Center (APERC), 2001. Making the

Clean Development Mechanism Work: With Some Case Studies in

the APEC Region. APERC, Tokyo.

Asuka, J., 2003. Experience of the carbon fund and its implication for

Schwarze, R., 2000. Activities implemented jointly: another look at the

facts. Ecological Economics 32 (2), 255267.

Shukla, P.R., 1995. Greenhouse gas models and abatement costs for

developing nations. Energy Policy 23 (8), 677687.

Springer, U., 2003. The market for tradable GHG permits under the

Kyoto protocol: a survey of model studies. Energy Economics 25

(5), 527551.

State Statistical Bureau, 2001. China Energy Statistical Yearbook

19971999. China Statistical Publishing House, Beijing.

Sutter, C. Factor Consulting+Management Ltd., 2001. Small-scale

CDM projects: opportunities and obstacles. Study nanced by the

Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation, Zurich. http://

www.up.umnw.ethz.ch/publications/Sutter_2001_Small-Sca-

le_CDM_Vol1.pdf (accessed 30 January 2004).

The Editorial Board of China Steel Yearbook, 2002. China Steel

Yearbook. China Iron and Steel Association, Beijing.

Ujikawa, K., 2003. Global Warming Problem and JapanChina

CDM Iron-making Project. The Keizai Gaku 65 (1), 129142 (in

Japanese).

Woerdman, E., van der Gaast, W., 2001. Project-based emissions

trading: the impact of institutional arrangements on cost-effective-

ness. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 6

(2), 113154.S. Kaneko et al. / Energy Policy 34 (2006) 11391151 1151

Technology choice and CDM projects in China: case study of a small steel company in Shandong ProvinceIntroductionReview of relevant studiesEstimating abatement costsAssessment of AIJAnalysis of profitability of CDM projects